The Internet Is Bigger Than Hasan Piker 

If the year ends in a number from zero to nine, then Democrats are going to fight among themselves about what shows it’s OK to go on.  

In 2019, the Democratic National Committee refused to let Fox News host a presidential primary debate, and a divide emerged between candidates willing to sit for individual Fox News town halls and those who weren’t.  

During the 2024 presidential campaign, a should-she-or-shouldn’t-she debate mushroomed over whether Kamala Harris should go on the podcast of MAGA-friendly, conspiracy-minded Joe Rogan. (She entered into negotiations with Rogan but couldn’t agree on parameters.) 

This year the perennial argument has shifted toward the left, as Democrats debate whether it’s OK to talk on-air with Hasan Piker, a 34-year-old socialist and Twitch streamer with 3 million followers, whom critics accuse of anti-Semitism and misogyny.  

The debate was provoked by Jonathan Cowan and Lily Cohen from the moderate think tank Third Way. In a March 19 Wall Street Journal column, they argued:

Mr. Piker is anti-American, antiwomen, anti-Western and antisemitic. No Democrat should engage with him … Handing Mr. Piker a microphone isn’t magnanimous or respectful of views that test your priors. Going on his show isn’t a sign of bravery, of willingness to talk to the other side, or to show up in challenging places. All these things do is support a bigot. 

One week later, Representative Haley Stevens, who is running for Senate, criticized one of her primary rivals Abdul El-Sayed for scheduling two campaign rallies with Piker. Stevens told Jewish Insider that El-Sayed is “choosing to campaign with someone who has a history of antisemitic rhetoric.” The following day another Senate candidate, Michigan State Senator Mallory McMorrow, echoed Stevens, describing Piker as someone “who says extremely offensive things in order to generate clicks and views and followers, which is not entirely different from somebody like [neo-Nazi commentator] Nick Fuentes.” 

Stevens and McMorrow were knocking El-Sayed for campaigning alongside Piker, not just being interviewed by him. But once the Michigan friction was covered by The New York Times, Piker was elevated from mere influencer to full-blown national controversy, prompting a flood of commentary from the hot take industry over whether Democrats should go on his platforms and try to reach his audience of young voters.  

On the April 5 edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, host Kristen Welker put to Representative Ro Khanna a list of Piker’s rhetorical transgressions: “He’s referred to ultra-Orthodox Jews as ‘inbred,’ employed anti-Semitic dog whistles—‘blood-thirsty, violent pig dog’—against an anti-Hamas viewer of his stream, compared liberal Zionists to liberal Nazis and said Hamas is 1,000 times better than the Israeli state.” She asked Khanna if he had “any regrets” about his past appearances on Piker’s stream. Khanna replied “none.” He said, “I, of course, condemn those comments” but argued that “the test [for politicians] should be what you say” on various shows, not what the host says. Further, he argued that appearing on controversial shows is necessary to reach voters:  

Should we not go on Theo Von? Should we not go on Shawn Ryan? Should we not go on Joe Rogan? Should we just have these purity tests of canceling folks? The lesson of the last election is we’ve got to be out there. We’ve got to engage. It’s a complex, messy, multi-racial democracy. I will defend my views, but the people who are saying, ‘Don’t engage,’ will cost us future elections. 

The Khanna rule—“the test should be what you say”—is a sound rule, not just morally but practically. Appearing on anyone’s show is far from an endorsement of everything that person has ever said. Besides, in a decentralized media environment where anyone can have their own show with just a computer or smartphone, it’s not possible for a politician to fully vet every host who asks for an interview.  

Where things can get dicey is when politicians veer toward flattery. Last month, Third Way’s Cohen posted on the social media platform X that she wanted to “see more Dems calling out antisemitism on their own side” by “admitting how big a problem it is and then revoking all support for [Maine Senate candidate Graham] Platner, icing out [New York City Mayor Zohran] Mamdani, alienating Piker & candidates who join his stream.” Khanna replied, tagging the handles of the people referenced by Cohen: “I am proud to stand with @grahamformaine @ZohranKMamdani & join @hasanthehun feed. The problem is with the neocons in our party who blundered into Iraq, 20 years in Afghanistan, Libya, Gaza, & now support the Iran war.” Khanna was noticeably careful in his words, using “stand with” in reference to Platner and Mamdani, while only expressing pride in joining Piker’s “feed,” not praising Piker himself. But an uncharitable observer could accuse Khanna of praising Piker and overlooking examples of hateful rhetoric.  

Speaking of Platner, he may have created a vulnerability in January when he joined the YouTube stream of Nate Cornacchia and spoke effusively of being “a longtime fan of the show.” As Jewish Insider chronicled, Cornacchia has pushed the baseless anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that Israel was behind the murder of Charlie Kirk, claiming, “Kirk said that he was tired of being bullied by his Jewish donors … and he was dead 48 hours later.” And Cornacchia has also suggested that John F. Kennedy’s assassination, Mamdani’s election, and the entire global war on terror were Israeli plots. Perhaps Platner would disavow Cornacchia’s statements, but his campaign did not respond to Jewish Insider when asked for a comment. 

Or, Platner may prove deft enough to connect with disaffected young voters through controversial online shows without besmirching his own reputation and losing older voters. Khanna’s argument comes down to believing that pulling off that trick is essential for victory. 

The argument isn’t without merit. According to post-election data analysis by Catalist, among cohorts grouped by age and gender, Harris’s steepest drop in support compared to Joe Biden four years prior was among men under 30: a nine-point decline, from 54 to 45 percent. Therefore, the logic goes, Democrats need to show up in media consumed by young men.  

However, such logic doesn’t automatically necessitate that Democrats need to connect with Piker or Cornacchia or other online figures who cross lines of decency.

In May 2025, the Young Men Research Initiative polled males under 30 about several media figures with whom they were familiar, asking if they “like that person’s content and generally trust what they say.” For Piker, 47 percent were familiar, and of those, 26 percent both liked and trusted his content, which translated into 12 percent of all young men being familiar with Piker as well as liking and trusting him. Does that represent a significant bloc of voters? The Young Men Research Initiative argues it does, concluding, Piker is “a flag-bearer for the left-wing, digital-friendly bloc of the Gen Z progressive movement – a bloc with young men actively seeking out online voices who speak their language and don’t apologize for it.” But another progressive and less controversial influencer, Dean Withers, posted similar numbers, with 38 percent familiarity, and 26 percent of those expressing both like and trust. That amounts to 10 percent of all young males knowing, liking, and trusting Withers, who boasts 5.4 million TikTok followers.  

Also relevant to this debate is whether the average Democratic politician can expect to perform well on some of the rowdier online platforms. Whether or not you are inclined to tag Piker as bigoted or misogynist, there’s no getting around the fact that he can be just plain mean. In one infamous streaming rant, he reacted to a video of an Asian-American female Trump supporter by saying, “Suck my d*** old lady” and “F*** this refugee.” And he’s not exactly thrilled with establishment Democrats. He recently posted on X: “this is why there’s a lot of worry from some in the [Democratic] party. they don’t want me working to primary bad democrats and replace them w a thousand zohran style left flank candidates!” An attempt by a relatively moderate candidate to engage Piker on a livestream could easily lead to content that the kids call “cringe.”  

Such was the argument around whether Harris should have talked with Joe Rogan. On paper, sure, why not try to reach his millions of predominantly male fans? But in practice, Harris may have been forced to push back on Rogan’s conspiracy theories that dovetailed with Trump’s, which could have led to awkward moments that alienated his fans. If Rogan was a singular gatekeeper of hard-to-reach voters, then the risk would be clearly justified. But there are no singular gatekeepers in this constantly changing, balkanized media landscape. Democratic politicians in general should go beyond the comfort zone of like-minded podcasters and MSNOW hosts, and be unafraid to take tough questions and engage in debate. But individual Democratic politicians need to think carefully about what specific online media figures would give them the best opportunity to be heard and not humiliated.  

Khanna understandably resists “purity tests.” At the same time, a few problematic streamers should not be held up as litmus tests that every Democrat must face to prove their mettle, especially when there are so many streamers to choose from. 

The post The Internet Is Bigger Than Hasan Piker  appeared first on Washington Monthly.